Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the cost model ('1 point per returned record') and the returned fields (form, date, page number), but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the implicit 'List' read semantics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource before the category enumeration and cost note. Slightly packed but every clause contributes; no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only listing tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, accepted identifiers, category scope, and cost. Return values needn't be explained absent an output schema, so it is largely complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the enum options for 'list'. The description restates those same categories rather than adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb (List) plus precise resource (the filings of one Cyprus organisation) and an enumeration of the filing categories (documents, charges, translations, HE32, pending). The scope word 'filings' cleanly separates it from the sibling run_cy_companies and run_cy_companies_search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: you call it to retrieve filings for a known company, keyed by registration number or registry link. However, it never states when to prefer this over run_cy_companies or run_cy_companies_search, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.